Sunday, December 5, 2021

Book Review: Of Mice and Men


My second John Steinbeck novel. The Pearl was first, an assigned reading in high school. The Pearl is a tragic story and so is this. Not sure I want to go through another Steinbeck again but he's such a good writer so maybe Grapes of Wrath next. As a final note, Of Mice and Men reads like a good story for a play.

#steinbeck #ofmiceandmen #bookreview

Friday, December 3, 2021

Book Review: H is for Hawk


Among my first purchase from my favorite second hand bookstore, Dignity Mama Stall, is this book H is for Hawk. I got it after reading a good review about the book. I repost this short review I made a few years ago. 

The story revolves around one woman's struggle to deal with the death of her father. Her way was to go back to a childhood dream of taming a wild bird. She proceeded to get a goshawk and there is where the story begins.

It was a pretty tough read when I ventured into the book. It took me months to finish the way a Russian classic would. Two paragraphs I loved though, on page 265, read like this:

“They are only safe for us. The fields where I fly Mabel back in Cambridge are farmed organically, and they are teeming with life. These are not. The big animals are here, it is true: the deer, the foxes, the rabbits; the fields look the same, and the trees, too, but look more carefully and this land is empty. There are few plants other than crops, and few bees, or butterflies, for the soil is dressed and sprayed with chemicals that kill. Ten years ago there were turtle doves on this land. Thirty years ago there were corn buntings and enormous flocks of lapwings. Seventy years ago there were red-backed shrikes, wrynecks and snipe. Two hundred years ago, ravens and black grouse. All of them are gone.

Old England is an imaginary place, a landscape built from words, woodcuts, films, paintings, picturesque engravings. It is a place imagined by people, and people do not live very long or look very hard. We are very bad at scale. The things that live in the soil are too small to care about; climate change too large to imagine. We are bad at time, too. We cannot remember what lived here before we did; we cannot love what is not. Nor can we imagine what will be different when we are dead. We live out three score and ten, and tie our knots and lines to ourselves. We take solace in pictures, and we wipe the hills of history.”

Happy to lend to anyone interested. 

#bookreview #HisforHawk #secondhandbook

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Around the world's museum at your desktop

Like the digital camera, this Google Earth innovation is one I'd consider to be one of the greatest innovation done by humanity. Imagine seeing all the beautiful artworks through history by your fingertips. Sure, it's nice to travel and see actual beauty, but while you're saving for your trips, you can go here: http://www.googleartproject.com/artworks/. Enjoy!

Friday, July 2, 2010

New Poem


Judgment


There’s beauty
Then there’s ugly
What is burden
Is knowing the disparity

1 July 2010
1:52 pm

Sunday, September 13, 2009

The Truth About Lorin Jones: A Review


The Truth About Lorin Jones
Alison Lurie
Little, Brown and Company
1988
328 pages

A serendipitous find of a novel by a Pulitzer Prize winning author keeps one good company over long weekends. It’s what I realized when I decided to finally open The Truth About Lorin Jones by Alison Lurie over a three-day weekend last month.

I remember being primarily intrigued by the book’s title, then by its pallid cover which depicted a girl, a plain-looking, plainly-dressed dark-haired girl, who exuded a strange and intriguing aura, and then its very catchy synopsis.

After reading a few lines into the first chapter, I was hooked. Alison Laurie has a wonderful gift in story-telling, a style that quietly sneaks up on you and captivates you and glues you to her book. She is funny, unpretentiously intelligent, and realistic.

The novel tells the story of two female protagonists, both painters. The one still living, Polly Alter, is writing a biography of the deceased Lorin Jones. Polly, who considers herself a failed artist, is a fan of Lorin who is known to the industry as a genius. When Polly began with writing her first attempt at authoring a biography, she starts with a thesis wherein Lorin is a genius victimized by a male-dominated art industry and her male lovers, and this victimization cut her life and success short. Being enamoured with her heroine at the early stage in the work, Polly pushed the partial parallels between her and Lorin’s life as she tried to identify with her subject.

As she conducted her research, Polly met people who are related to, worked with, or slept with Lorin Jones; each had their version of who Lorin was. In the end, she realizes that Lorin was not a hapless victim of her trade. She might have been pressured, pushed around and tricked by some people around her, but she did her own pushing, pressuring and asserting too when she needed to.

All of these helped unravel Lorin’s story, while significant things occurred in Polly’s life. She had an unsuccessful foray into lesbianism, her continuous and mostly difficult negotiation with her estranged husband regarding their son, her complicated interaction with her best friend (and accidental lover) and her best friend’s girlfriend and feminist friends, and her painful peacemaking with her father.

In the unfolding of this complex story, readers learn about the shortcomings of the ‘ideals’, whether it is a person we idolize (a genius but quirky artist like Lorin Jones) or the ideology we choose to live by (feminism being a good framework to view the world with but not the only framework). Hence, despite the ideals that we learn as we go along our way, the truth about ourselves is that we try to be good and also do good but we move along, possibly not always on the road to the ideal, depending on the resources (or constraints) we have on hand.

After much discussion on the customary feminist discourses on choice, loyalty to one’s sex (mainly attributed to the weaknesses of the male sex), the book ends with a seeming nod to teenage pop fiction; the heroine (Polly), whose beauty heightens as the story progresses, decides to follow her heart and make a drastic transition with the man she recently met and fell in love with.

Monday, October 13, 2008

The trouble with the stockmarket

Singapore is in recession, and it's quite worrisome. I really don't want people around me being depressed. Jobs may be lost, and the domestic workers (Filipinas were interviewed) are worried they might be sent home. Sounds like doomsday but it is always fear that makes matters worse. I'll try to be brave. My former pastor used to say that God takes care of his children no matter what the economy is. His churchgoers have seen blessing pour into their lives regardless of the past crises that have happened in Singapore. I want to be a testament.

Below is a news clip that help explains what really happens to money when stock markets crash, for the newbies mainly, it's basic.

It reminds me not to be too greedy, and that if I have money to invest, I am reminded to diversify my portfolio and not put everything in the stock market.

****
All that money you've lost _ where did it go?
By Eric Carvin,Associated Press Writer AP - Sunday, October 12

NEW YORK - Trillions in stock market value _ gone. Trillions in retirement savings _ gone. A huge chunk of the money you paid for your house, the money you're saving for college, the money your boss needs to make payroll _ gone, gone, gone.

Whether you're a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you've lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.

But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?

Or is it just _ gone?

If you're looking to track down your missing money _ figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back _ you might be disappointed to learn that is was never really money in the first place.

Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money _ it's simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.

"It's in people's minds," Shiller explains. "We're just recording a measure of what people think the stock market is worth. What the people who are willing to trade today _ who are very, very few people _ are actually trading at. So we're just extrapolating that and thinking, well, maybe that's what everyone thinks it's worth."

Shiller uses the example of an appraiser who values a house at $350,000, a week after saying it was worth $400,000.

"In a sense, $50,000 just disappeared when he said that," he said. "But it's all in the mind."

Though something, of course, is disappearing as markets and real estate values tumble. Even if a share of stock you own isn't a wad of bills in your wallet, even if the value of your home isn't something you can redeem at will, surely you can lose potential money _ that is, the money that would be yours to spend if you sold your house or emptied out your mutual funds right now.

And if you're a few months away from retirement, or hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to help pay for your kid's college tuition, this "potential money" is something you're counting on to get by. For people who need cash and need it now, this is as real as money gets, whether or not it meets the technical definition of the word.

Still, you run into trouble when you think of that potential money as being the same thing as the cash in your purse or your checking account.

"That's a big mistake," says Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at Harvard.

There's a key distinction here: While the money in your pocket is unlikely to just vanish into thin air, the money you could have had, if only you'd sold your house or drained your stock-heavy mutual funds a year ago, most certainly can.

"You can't enjoy the benefits of your 401(k) if it's disappeared," Jorgenson explains. "If you had it all in financial stocks and they've all gone down by 80 percent _ sorry! That is a permanent loss because those folks aren't coming back. We're gonna have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector."

There was a time when nobody had to wonder what happened to the money they used to have. Until paper money was developed in China around the ninth century, money was something solid that had actual value _ like a gold coin that was worth whatever that amount of gold was worth, according to Douglas Mudd, curator of the American Numismatic Association's Money Museum in Denver.

Back then, if the money you once had was suddenly gone, there was a simple reason _ you spent it, someone stole it, you dropped it in a field somewhere, or maybe a tornado or some other disaster struck wherever you last put it down.

But these days, a lot of things that have monetary value can't be held in your hand.

If you choose, you can pour most of your money into stocks and track their value in real time on a computer screen, confident that you'll get good money for them when you decide to sell. And you won't be alone _ staring at millions of computer screens are other investors who share your confidence that the value of their portfolios will hold up.

But that collective confidence, Jorgenson says, is gone. And when confidence is drained out of a financial system, a lot of investors will decide to sell at any price, and a big chunk of that money you thought your investments were worth simply goes away.

If you once thought your investment portfolio was as good as a suitcase full of twenties, you might suddenly suspect that it's not.

In the process, of course, you're losing wealth. But does that mean someone else must be gaining it? Does the world have some fixed amount of wealth that shifts between people, nations and institutions with the ebb and flow of the economy?

Jorgenson says no _ the amount of wealth in the world "simply decreases in a situation like this." And he cautions against assuming that your investment losses mean a gain for someone else _ like wealthy stock speculators who try to make money by betting that the market will drop.

"Those folks in general have been losing their shirts at a prodigious rate," he said. "They took a big risk and now they're suffering from the consequences."

"Of course, they had a great life, as long as it lasted."

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Because this blog mimics a cafe, and because I love coffee

From New York Times 5 August 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/health/05brod.html?no_interstitial#

Sorting Out Coffee’s Contradictions

By JANE E. BRODY

When Howard D. Schultz in 1985 founded the company that would become the wildly successful Starbucks chain, no financial adviser had to tell him that coffee was America’s leading beverage and caffeine its most widely used drug. The millions of customers who flock to Starbucks to order a double espresso, latte or coffee grande attest daily to his assessment of American passions.
Although the company might have overestimated consumer willingness to spend up to $4 for a cup of coffee — it recently announced that it would close hundreds of underperforming stores — scores of imitators that now sell coffee, tea and other products laced with caffeine reflect a society determined to run hard on as little sleep as possible.

But as with any product used to excess, consumers often wonder about the health consequences. And researchers readily oblige. Hardly a month goes by without a report that hails coffee, tea or caffeine as healthful or damns them as potential killers.

Can all these often contradictory reports be right? Yes. Coffee and tea, after all, are complex mixtures of chemicals, several of which may independently affect health.

Caffeine Myths
Through the years, the public has been buffeted by much misguided information about caffeine and its most common source, coffee. In March the Center for Science in the Public Interest published a comprehensive appraisal of scientific reports in its Nutrition Action Healthletter. Its findings and those of other research reports follow.
Hydration. It was long thought that caffeinated beverages were diuretics, but studies reviewed last year found that people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine. Above 575 milligrams, the drug was a diuretic.

So even a Starbucks grande, with 330 milligrams of caffeine, will not send you to a bathroom any sooner than if you drank 16 ounces of pure water. Drinks containing usual doses of caffeine are hydrating and, like water, contribute to the body’s daily water needs.
Heart disease. Heart patients, especially those with high blood pressure, are often told to avoid caffeine, a known stimulant. But an analysis of 10 studies of more than 400,000 people found no increase in heart disease among daily coffee drinkers, whether their coffee came with caffeine or not.

“Contrary to common belief,” concluded cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco, there is “little evidence that coffee and/or caffeine in typical dosages increases the risk” of heart attack, sudden death or abnormal heart rhythms.

In fact, among 27,000 women followed for 15 years in the Iowa Women’s Health Study, those who drank one to three cups a day reduced their risk of cardiovascular disease by 24 percent, although this benefit diminished as the quantity of coffee rose.

Hypertension. Caffeine induces a small, temporary rise in blood pressure. But in a study of 155,000 nurses, women who drank coffee with or without caffeine for a decade were no more likely to develop hypertension than noncoffee drinkers. However, a higher risk of hypertension was found from drinking colas. A Johns Hopkins study that followed more than 1,000 men for 33 years found that coffee drinking played little overall role in the development of hypertension.
Cancer. Panic swept this coffee-dependent nation in 1981 when a Harvard study tied the drink to a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Coffee consumption temporarily plummeted, and the researchers later concluded that perhaps smoking, not coffee, was the culprit.

In an international review of 66 studies last year, scientists found coffee drinking had little if any effect on the risk of developing pancreatic or kidney cancer. In fact, another review suggested that compared with people who do not drink coffee, those who do have half the risk of developing liver cancer.

And a study of 59,000 women in Sweden found no connection between coffee, tea or caffeine consumption and breast cancer.

Bone loss. Though some observational studies have linked caffeinated beverages to bone loss and fractures, human physiological studies have found only a slight reduction in calcium absorption and no effect on calcium excretion, suggesting the observations may reflect a diminished intake of milk-based beverages among coffee and tea drinkers.

Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University says that caffeine’s negative effect on calcium can be offset by as little as one or two tablespoons of milk. He advised that coffee and tea drinkers who consume the currently recommended amount of calcium need not worry about caffeine’s effect on their bones.

Weight loss. Here’s a bummer. Although caffeine speeds up metabolism, with 100 milligrams burning an extra 75 to 100 calories a day, no long-term benefit to weight control has been demonstrated. In fact, in a study of more than 58,000 health professionals followed for 12 years, both men and women who increased their caffeine consumption gained more weight than those who didn’t.

Health Benefits
Probably the most important effects of caffeine are its ability to enhance mood and mental and physical performance. At consumption levels up to 200 milligrams (the amount in about 16 ounces of ordinary brewed coffee), consumers report an improved sense of well-being, happiness, energy, alertness and sociability, Roland Griffiths of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine reported, although higher amounts sometimes cause anxiety and stomach upset.
Millions of sleep-deprived Americans depend on caffeine to help them make it through their day and drive safely. The drug improves alertness and reaction time. In the sleep-deprived, it improves memory and the ability to perform complex tasks.

For the active, caffeine enhances endurance in aerobic activities and performance in anaerobic ones, perhaps because it blunts the perception of pain and aids the ability to burn fat for fuel instead of its carbohydrates.

Recent disease-related findings can only add to coffee’s popularity. A review of 13 studies found that people who drank caffeinated coffee, but not decaf, had a 30 percent lower risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Another review found that compared with noncoffee drinkers, people who drank four to six cups of coffee a day, with or without caffeine, had a 28 percent lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. This benefit probably comes from coffee’s antioxidants and chlorogenic acid.